Symbolic Communication Between Two Chimpanzees (
            <i>Pan troglodytes</i>
            )

Savage‐Rumbaugh, E. Sue; Rumbaugh, DM; Boysen, Sarah T.

doi:10.1126/science.675251

Cited by 285 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They were cognitively enriched from infancy and are accustomed to these kinds of interactive tasks. The one that subjectively seemed to understand it first had previous experience exchanging with a partner to obtain tools (29), and this particular pair was the most successful in a recent barter task requiring them to exchange tokens with each other (30). It may be that previous experiences had led this pair to expect that interaction with the partner and the experimenter could provide rewards.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Responses to the Assurance game in monkeys, apes, and humans using equivalent procedures

Brosnan

Parrish

Beran

et al. 2011

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is great interest in the evolution of economic behavior. In typical studies, species are asked to play one of a series of economic games, derived from game theory, and their responses are compared. The advantage of this approach is the relative level of consistency and control that emerges from the games themselves; however, in the typical experiment, procedures and conditions differ widely, particularly between humans and other species. Thus, in the current study, we investigated how three primate species, capuchin monkeys, chimpanzees, and humans, played the Assurance (or Stag Hunt) game using procedures that were, to the best of our ability, the same across species, particularly with respect to training and pretesting. Our goal was to determine what, if any, differences existed in the ways in which these species made decisions in this game. We hypothesized differences along phylogenetic lines, which we found. However, the species were more similar than might be expected. In particular, humans who played using "nonhuman primate-friendly" rules did not behave as is typical. Thus, we find evidence for similarity in decision-making processes across the order Primates. These results indicate that such comparative studies are possible and, moreover, that in any comparison rating species' relative abilities, extreme care must be taken in ensuring that one species does not have an advantage over the others due to methodological procedures.cooperation | coordination | comparative behavior | evolution of behavior R ecent advances in the study of economic decision making have fundamentally altered how we view the science of economics. Beginning with experimental economics (1) and continuing in more recently emerging fields such as neuroeconomics (2, 3), there has been a much more scientific approach to understanding how humans make decisions in economic contexts. Most recently, there has emerged an interest in understanding the evolution of human decision making, primarily as studied using a comparative approach. Although studies of rats and pigeons emerged many decades ago, a recent surge with additional species has provided even more data relevant to social scientists interested in decision making.Although game theory has been used independently in behavioral ecology for decades (4), it is only recently that human economic games have been used extensively to address decisionmaking behavior (5, 6) and underlying neural activity (7). There are certainly reasons to think that humans and other primates might be similar in their decision-making abilities. Other primates are our closest living relatives-we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees within approximately the last 6 million y (8)-so there is a high likelihood of homology. Even though this does not mean identical decision making, it implies similarity in the underlying structures. Nonhuman primates also show many of the same cognitive skills, and even biases (9, 10), as humans. Alternately, though, humans are distinct from other primates, and even a few mil...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Responses to the Assurance game in monkeys, apes, and humans using equivalent procedures

Brosnan

Parrish

Beran

et al. 2011

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Symbolic communication between animals can be analyzed in terms of a series of interlocking compound arrangements (Epstein, Lanza, & Skinner, 1980;Lubinski & MacCorquodale, 1984;Savage-Rumbaugh, Rumbaugh, & Boysen, 1978). In these experiments, organisms' exchanging of discriminative stimuli was conditioned via arbitrary matching tasks when only one of the organisms had access to the stimuli correlated with reinforced responding (hence, the options encountered in certain links of these arrangements were contingent on the behavior of another organism).…”

Section: Compound Combinationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Units of Analysis and Kinetic Structure of Behavioral Repertoires

Thompson

Lubinski

1986

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is suggested that molar streams of behavior are constructed of various arrangements of three elementary constituents (elicited, evoked, and emitted response classes). An eight-cell taxonomy is elaborated as a framework for analyzing and synthesizing complex behavioral repertoires based on these functional units. It is proposed that the local force binding functional units into a smoothly articulated kinetic sequence arises from temporally arranged relative response probability relationships. Behavioral integration is thought to reflect the joint influence of the organism's hierarchy of relative response probabilities, fluctuating biological states, and the arrangement of environmental and behavioral events in time.Key words: behavioral units, units of analysis, response class, organization of behavior, behavioral taxonomy, relative response probability PROTASIS An impala gamboling across an East African Serengeti plain or a 16-month-old child confronted with a novel toy presents seamless streams of kinetic motion, free of beginnings or endings. The scant frequency with which behavioral scientists have concerned themselves with identifying the fundamental units of behavioral phenomena is, in part, due to the conspicuous integrity of such naturally occurring episodes; indeed, at times they seem to defy scientific analysis. Of the unresolved issues facing behavior scientists, none is more central than the analysis and synthesis of the fundamental units of behavior. Analyzing continuously flowing behavior into basic components and then resynthesizing it is a major aim of behavioral science. This goal is predicated on an understanding of the fundamental units of which behavior is composed. KnowlAppreciation is expressed to Robert Hinde, whose helpful remarks improved the first draft of this paper, and to John Falk, M. Jackson Marr, Paul Meehl, Richard Meisch, J. Bruce Overmier, Roger Schnaitter, Murray Sidman, and Michael Zeiler, whose comments sizably improved the manuscript. We especially wish to express our appreciation to our friend and teacher, Kenneth MacCorquodale. We hope the ideas expressed in this paper are in keeping with the intellectual tradition he taught so effectively at the University of Minnesota for 37 years.Reprint requests may be sent to

show abstract

“…Lana comunicaba mediante la elección de los botones adecuados. Sue Savage- Rumbaugh, et al, (1978) mostraron que puede establecerse una comunicación simbólica entre dos chimpancés. Todos estos experimentos pusieron en evidencia claramente que los chimpancés perciben diversos procesos subjetivos, piensan, sienten y comunican, así como evocan situaciones no actuales, y virtuales con las cuales pueden manejarse (SavageRumbaugh y cols., 1980).…”

Section: Evolución Y Subjetividadunclassified

Dialectica de los Procesos Subjetivos

Santibáñez

2002

RevPsicología

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Symbolic Communication Between Two Chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes )

Cited by 285 publications

References 4 publications

Responses to the Assurance game in monkeys, apes, and humans using equivalent procedures

Responses to the Assurance game in monkeys, apes, and humans using equivalent procedures

Units of Analysis and Kinetic Structure of Behavioral Repertoires

Dialectica de los Procesos Subjetivos

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About